Ready in what way? Because it seems anything BUT ready to me!
Except that the numbers just don't look that good once you factor in all the costs. And that's assuming it can even do the job in the first place which is quite unlikely. I mean, no good Exchange Client (hope you didn't need email), no ActiveX-compatible browser (that's not an uncommon requirement in big businesses or gov't), not being able to run any of the existing software (just find suitable replacements for 100% of the software used by every single of the 100000+ employees), supporting all of the incredibly diverse hardware you find in an organization of that size, etc.
I don't see how it would be a problem. If they threaten to switch, they will get better prices. It seems like a well known strategy, and I don't see how a supplier offering a better deal would be a problem. The only "problem" here is for MS, who would get less money per license.
The rest of the article is pretty much one big joke...
...which is exactly when the current version of Ubuntu (the one they're talking about) loses support, so not a single day is gained. Unless you stick to the LTS, where you just push your problem back by a couple years instead (vs Win7 SP1 which gets support until January 2020 at least and might be extended like XP's date was)
Yes, as if Ubuntu (Linux with Unity and now HUD too) which people are abandoning for Mint and Arch is any less uncertain! If anything it's even more confusing (and again, no binary compatibility, etc)
They're pushing for a drastic change which is almost certain to turn into complete and massive failure which very well might even cost more, when a very good (and really not THAT expensive) solution already exists in the form of Win7, which most of the market is moving to already, and with great success. The interface is still pretty familiar, it still runs all the software you need and so on.
Sometimes I wonder if any of these people ever worked in a business environment. Because they clearly seem not to understand the millions of ways people are just locked in to MS products, and their one and only argument seems to be that Linux makes you save the Windows license, while disregarding absolutely *everything* else (like not being able to do the job in the first place). They don't seem to get just how massive such a migration would be, the amount of planning required and the time it takes (it's already too late to even think of a staged migration). It only makes them seem amateurish IMO, and that's just one more reason not to trust them.